Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.’s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors’ conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.’s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.’s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales’ cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales’ cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.’s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole

A Comparative Test of Creative Thinking in Preschool Children and Dolphins

Creativity is considered one aspect of intelligence. Including creativity allows for more room for expression (e.g., participants can respond with movement instead of written or verbal responses) than in standard intelligence assessments. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974) are the leading method of assessing creative abilities in school-aged humans and above. To assess creativity in young humans and nonhuman animals, modifications must be made to facilitate nonverbal responses. In the current study, a cross-species comparison was conducted between preschoolers and bottlenose dolphins to examine responses to a modified creativity task in which both species were trained to demonstrate non-repeated behaviors to an “innovate” prompt. The resulting behaviors for the first test session were coded for fluency (number of non-repeated behaviors demonstrated), originality, and flexibility (low, moderate, or high activity level). Children and dolphins produced a similar number of non-repeated behaviors during individual test trials and also had similar originality scores. Related to flexibility, dolphins displayed more low energy activity levels compared to the children. Given the limited understanding of creative abilities in animals and young children, this comparison using a modified version of the TTCT offers exciting possibilities. These results could provide further evidence of similarities in cognitive processes for humans and nonhuman animals

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare \u2013 a commentary

We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.\u2019s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic\u2013pituitary\u2013adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors\u2019 conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.\u2019s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.\u2019s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales\u2019 cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales\u2019 cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.\u2019s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole

Overlap between Information Gained from Complementary and Comparative Studies of Captive and Wild Dolphins

Dolphin behavior has been observed in both captive and wild settings for years. Comparisons of captive and wild aquatic mammals have proven difficult because of limitations placed on observers in both arenas; still research conducted in each setting provides details often unavailable from the other environment. For example, internal body states (e.g., hormone levels) that might effect the expression of certain behaviors cannot readily be measured from wild dolphins; however, they can be routinely documented during husbandry behaviors. Conversely, detailed documentation of dolphin travel patterns is more readily available from long-term studies of wild dolphins; and while travel patterns are not applicable for study from captive individuals, observation of movement patterns within a pool can be examined to provide insight into an individual’s behavior or inter-individual interactions. Long-term observations from three captive and three wild dolphins study populations are presented comparatively to illustrate how work on groups in each setting can complement one another. Additionally, data from a survey of trainers (50 surveys distributed with 17 completed surveys received) suggests that dolphin trainers interpreted several behaviors in ways that were consistent with observations of wild dolphins. For example, tail slapping was reported mainly as irritation(45.5%) or frustration (22.7%), but was also suggested to occur in play (31.8%). Pectoral fin rubs were used in appeasement (15.4%), comfort (7.7%), and affection (26.9%) more so than in sexual(7.7%) contexts or not at all (7.7%). Jaw claps, hitting, biting, chasing and ramming were observed in aggressive contexts in both captivity and the wild. More significantly, there were no consistent differences between wild and captive dolphins reported by surveyed trainers. The author’s ongoing research program merges advantages from both environments to facilitate a more thorough understanding of dolphin communication and society

Methodological Considerations for Comparison of Cross-species Use of Tactile Contact

Cross-species comparisons are benefited by compatible datasets; conclusions related to phylogenetic comparisons, questions on convergent and divergent evolution, or homologs versus analogs can only be made when the behaviors being measured are comparable. A direct comparison of the social function of physical contact across two disparate taxa is possible only if data collection and analyses methodologies are analogous. We identify and discuss the parameters, assumptions and measurement schemes applicable to multiple taxa and species that facilitate cross-species comparisons. To illustrate our proposed guidelines for evaluating the role played by tactile contact in social behavior across disparate taxa, this paper presents data on mother-offspring relationships in the two species studied by the authors: chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii ) and dolphins (bottlenose and spotted, Tursiops truncatus and Stenella frontalis , respectively). Cross-species comparative studies allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the similarities and differences with respect to how animals traverse the relationships that form their social groups and societies

Short Note: Dolphin Sightings Near the Coast of Bimini, The Bahamas, 2003-2013

The article focuses on the study which examines the details of the sightings of spotted and bottlenose dolphins in the western shore of Bimini, Bahamas from 2003-2013. Topics discussed include the travel of dolphins based from the movement of all members in one direction, the clustering of group sizes for the assessment of the regularity of group of animals, and the size of the coastline of Bimini compared to other coastal areas

The Role of Touch in Select Social Interactions of Atlantic Spotted Dolphin (\u3ci\u3eStenella frontalis\u3c/i\u3e) and Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin (\u3ci\u3eTursiops aduncus\u3c/i\u3e)

In this descriptive study, the potentially communicative functions of non-vocal behaviors produced by two species of dolphin, Atlantic spotted (Stenella frontalis) and Indo-Pacific bottlenose (Tursiops aduncus), were examined in the context of three focal events: depart (one or more dolphins depart company of others), join (two or more dolphins come together), and contact (dolphin makes contact with another using a part of its body). These particular events were chosen because they involve interactions between dolphins and so provide an opportunity to examine possible precursors or antecedents to specific social behaviors. Non-vocal behaviors occurring before and/or after these focal events were documented and analyzed in an attempt to determine if certain behaviors were consistently associated with the departure (depart) or arrival (join) of another dolphin, or with physical contact (contact) between dolphins in each species. Touch behaviors were found to be significantly related to each of the three focal events so were examined in further detail. Overall, in comparing species, the Indo-Pacific bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins in this descriptive study exhibited more similarities than differences in their use of touch behaviors in potentially communicative situations across five broad behavioral contexts. However, a difference in the use of touch behaviors produced before departing or after joining a conspecific was noted. Specifically, the spotted dolphins were more likely to use contact after joining than before departing, whereas the bottlenose dolphins were equally likely to use contact in both situations